Page images

generally received the purchase money direct, it was held (reversing the judgment of the Court below—see Vol. 20, p. 54, iv.-Lord Morris dissenting), that the foreign merchant did not exercise his trade within the United Kingdom, so as to bring him within sched. D. of the Income Tax Act, 1852.—Grainger & Son v. Gough, L.R. [1896] A.C. 325; 74 L.T. 435.

Scotch Law:(i.) H. L.-Portions to Children.-The rule of English law against double

portions to children is not applicable to Scotland.Johnstonev. Haviland, Ž.R. [1896] A.C. 95.

[ocr errors]

Settled Land :(ii.) C. D.-Power to Trustees to purchase particular Land-Settled Land

Act, 1882, s. 33.-A power to trustees to purchase certain land at the request of the life tenant renders personal property in their hands “ liable” to be so laid out within the meaning of sect. 33 of the Act.In re_Hill's Settled Estates ; Hill v. Pilcher, L.R. (1896] 1 Ch. 962 ;

74 L.T. 460. (iii.) C. D.- Tenant for Life Lunatic-Annuity to Remainderman Overpaid

Claim for Return by Representative of Life Tenant.—By orders in lunacy an annuity was ordered to be paid out of settled estate to a remainderman for a limited period. The annuity was continued in error beyond the period and the remainderman mortgaged his estate. Held, that the personal representative of the life tenant was entitled to retain the overpayments with interest, notwithstanding the

mortgage.--In re Langham; Otway v. Langham, 74 L.T. 611. (iv.) C. D.-Jointure-Portions.-A power of jointuring does not cover the

creation of a rent charge in favour of the wife during the life of the husband. But a power conferred on the husband to charge the settled estate with portions for the children and with interest thereon by way of maintenance, may enable him to charge the estate, with payment to himself as guardian of the children of interest on their expectant portions. In re De Hoghton ; De Hoghton v. De Hoghton, L.R. (1896]

2 Ch. 385; 74 L.T. 613. (v.) C. D.-WillIncumbered and Unincumbered-Estates Devised as

whole Tenant for Life and Remainderman.Where a testator devised incumbered and unincumbered estates as a whole to a tenant for life who mortgaged his interest to an insurance company who foreclosed, the company were held not to be entitled to give up the incumbered portions which were profitless, but to be bound to apply the income of the whole to paying off the interest of the mortgages on the incumbered parts.-Frewen v. T'he Law Life Assurance Co., L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 511; 75 L.T. 17.


Settlement:(vi.) Ch. D.-Mortgage for a Term-Premature Repayment with a Forfeit

Rights of Tenant for Life and Remainderman to Accretion.-The trustees of a fund, which was settled on a person for life with remainder in fee to others, invested it on mortgage with a covenant that it should remain undisturbed for a fixed period. By agreement it was redeemed before the period had expired on payment of a forfeit of one year's interest, in addition to the interest accrued due. Held, that the additional sum was capital and belonged to the remaindermen. -In re Searancke ; Simonds v. Huntington, 74 L.T. 339.

(i.) P. D.-Variation of Settlement-Extinguishment of Divorced Parents'

Interest-Acceleration of Injani's Interest.—The Court on the ground that as infant's interest would be thereby accelerated, extinguished the interest on a marriage settlement of a husband from whom the wife had obtained a divorce with custody of the only child, notwithstanding that there was a power to her in such circumstances to raise a sum which would nearly exhaust the value of the entire estate.-Creagh v.

Creagh, 74 L.T. 430. (ii.) C. D.-Determinable Life Interest-Settlor Subsequently Bankrupt

Forfeiture.—By a marriage settlement the settlor assigned property to trustees upon trust to pay to him until he should die, become bankrupt or assign or incumber the income, or do anything whereby any part of it would become payable to any other person. He became bankrupt after the sole surviving trustee had advanced to him part of the trust funds on a covenant to repay and indemnify. After the bankruptcy the trustee was compelled to make good the trust fund. On a question arising, it was held that the settlor's life interest had not determined previously to his bankruptcy.-In re Brewer's Settlement ; Morton v.

Blackmore, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 503; 75 L.T. 177. Ship :(iii.) C. A.-Collision-Raising Wreck-Expenses of Harbour Board and

ConservatorsBasis of Calculation-Damages in Nature of Demurrage.The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board who were also the Conservancy Commissioners of the Mersey, were held entitled to recover as part of their damages the cost price of raising a lightship and a dredger, their property, which had been sunk in the harbour of Liverpool by the negligence of the defendants, and it was also held that interest on the original cost to the Board of their plant employed in the work was to form part of this cost price. But no allowance was made to them for the loss of use of the dredger while it was disabled. The rule laid down in the case of The Harrington followed.The Emerald; The

Greta Holme, L.R. [1896] P. 192; 74 L.T. 645. (iv.) Q. B. D.- Charter Party—Safe Port-Evidence of Custom.By a

charter party a ship was to discharge all her cargo at one port to be named by the charterers, which was to be a safe port where she could enter dock safely and lie afloat at all times. The ship was ordered to discharge at Gloucester, but being of too great a draught to proceed thither, discharged all her cargo at the nearest safe point. Held, that the port named was not "safe" within the meaning of the charter party, and that evidence of custom of similar ships to lighten before proceeding to Gloucester was inadmissible.-Reynolds & Co. v.

Tomlinson and Another, L.R. (1896] 1 Q.B. 586 ; 74 L.T. 591. (v.) C. A.-- Marine Insurance-Perils of the Sea-Judgment in Salvage

Suit-Evidence.-At the request of the master of a steam-vessel which had consumed nearly all its coal, but which could have proceeded under sail, towage was rendered to the incapacitated steamer. Salvage services were subsequently recovered. Held, that there had not been a loss by perils of the sea within the meaning of a time policy of insurance; and that a judgment against a shipowner for salvage award is not evidence of loss by perils of the sea.Ballantyne & Co. v.

Mackinnon, 75 L.T. 95. (vi.) C. A.-Collision-Compulsory Pilotage--London DistrictMerchant

Shipping Acts, 1854, s. 379 (3) ; 1894, s. 625 (3)—Privy Council Order, Dec. 21st, 1871.—A British ship, loaded at Cardiff for the River Plate, and on the return voyage landed cattle in London, and took the rest of the cargo to Rotterdam. Held, that she was within the terms of sect. 625, sub-sect. 3, of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as trading from a port in the London district to a port in Europe north and east of Brest, and, therefore, was exempt from compulsory pilotage.— The Rutland,

75 L.T. 48. (i.) P. D.-Shipwrecked Passengers-Forwarding by other Vessels-Salvage

-Agency of Master.- Where at the request of the master of a stranded vessel the passengers were conveyed to their destination by other vessels, it was held that the life salvors had no claim against the owners of the stranded vessel, who were not under any obligation to forward the passengers to their destination after the ship was disabled, and that the master made the request as the agent of the passengers.The

Mariposa, 75 L.T. 54. (ii.) Q. B. D. & C. A.-Light DuesHorses and Cattle on Deck

MeasurementMerchant Shipping Act, 1876, s. 23.—Horses and cattle carried on deck come within the words “other goods” in the 23rd sect. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, and from vessels arriving in port so freighted the Trinity House are entitled to light dues calculated on the rectangular space occupied by the animals.Richmond Hill Steamship Co. v. Corporation of Trinity House, L.R. (1896]

1 Q.B. 493 ; 2 Q.B. 134; 74 L.T. 380 and 75 L.T. 8. (iii.) P. D.-Practice-Separate Salvor3Joinder of 'Claims0. xvi., r. 1.

The practice of the Admiralty Court permits several salvors to join their claims in one action.The Maréchal Suchet, L.R. (1896] P. 233;

74 L.T. 789. (iv.) P. D.-Wages-Master's Lien-Mortgagee in Possession.—A master's

lien for wages does not take priority of a mortgage debt the payment

of which he has personally guaranteed.— The Bangor Castle, 74 L.T. 768. (v.) P. D. & C. A..—Marine Insurance“ at and from ”_ Vessel Lost before

Arrival at Loading Port.-An insurance was effected on freight “at and from ”any port on the west coast of South America. The policy was "to cover the freight from the time of the engagement of the goods, or after a shipping order has been issued, by the agent or his broker.” While on her way to load at a port within the terms of the policy, the ship was lost by perils insured against. Held, that the engagement clause must be construed, subject to the “ at and from clause,” and as the vessel had not arrived at a loading port, the risk had never attached.The Copernicus ; Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate_Steam Navigation Co. v. Holmes, L.R. [1896] P. 154, 237;

74 L.T. 431, 757. (vi.) P. D. & C. A.-Collision - Bye-Laws of Harbour of Newport, 1894,

Arts. 12 & 13– Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Art. 16.– Although an inward bound steamer had committed a breach of the bye-laws of the harbour of Newport in failing to enter the harbour as directed by Art. 13, it was helà that this had not contributed to a collision which took place with an outward bound steamer, and that the latter was alone to blame. The Winstanley, 74 L.T. 132

and 75 L.T. 133. (vii.) H. L.--Charter Party-Duty of Charterer to be Ready with Cargo. —

A charterer is not bound in all cases to be ready with cargo to meet the possibility of an opportunity occurring for a ship to load out of her

turn.-Little v. Sterenson & Co., L.R. (1896] A.C. 108; 74 L.T. 529. (viii.) Q. B.-Marine Insurance-Life Salvage.--The crew, but no part

of cargo, were rescued from a vessel which was insured in a Shipowners' Protection Association against such risks as were not capable of being assured against by the usual form of Lloyd's policy, and the owner had to pay a sum of money to the life salvors. Held, that simple life salvage is not covered by the ordinary Lloyd's policy of insurance, and that plaintiff could recover against the Protection Association.---Nourse v. The Liverpool Sailing Ship Owners' Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, Limited, L.R. (1896] 2 Q.B. 16 ;

74 L.T. 317, 543. (i.) Q. B. D.-Bill of Lading --Contraband of War- Restraint of Princes

Duty of Master of Ship.-By the terms of a bill of lading explosives contraband of war were to be delivered at Yokohama or as near thereto as the vessel could safely get having regard to the restraint of rulers, princes and people; but if the master considered the port of discharge unsafe by reason of war the goods were to be landed at the nearest safe and convenient port and thereupon the ship’s responsibility was to cease. The vessel arrived at Hong Kong during the war between China and Japan, and being, while carrying a contraband cargo, in peril of capture by Chinese warships the master landed the goods and proceeded on his voyage. Held, that the well founded fear of seizure was a restraint within the terms of the bill of lading; that urder the circumstances Hong Kong was the nearest safe and convenient port; and that landing the goods there was a proper discharge of the master's duty.- Nobels Explosives Co., Limited v. Jenkins & Co., L.R. [1896] 2 Q.B. 326 ; 75 L.T. 163.

Solicitor: (ii.) C. D,- Evidence-Statement by one Party to Solicitor of other Party

Privileje.- Statements made by one party in a joint undertaking to the solicitor of the other party in an interview, had at the latter's request,

were held to be privileged. - Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, 74 L.T. 783. (iii.) B. L.- Company- Costs of Private ActGeneral and Separate Capital.

– Decision of C. A. (see Vol. 20, p. 90, vii.) affirmed.-Nichols v. North

Metropolitan Railway and Canal Co., 74 L.T. 744. (iv.) C. D. & C. A.--Costs-Common o der to Tax-- Set-of-Counsel's fees.

-Under a common order to tax the solicitor must give credit for all such sums received by him in his capacity of solicitor or agent of his client, as he is legally or equitably liable to pay over to his client and against which, if sued by the client, he would set-off his costs. But against a bill of costs, for which a member of the bar is liable as a client, the solicitor cannot be required to set-off fees which he has received on behalf of the client acting as counsel in another matter.In re Le Brasseur und Oakley; e. p. Terrell, L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 487 ;

74 L.J. 526, 717. (v.) Ch. D.-Fund in Court— Payment out on Fraudulent Petition

Unauthorised use of Name of Firm of Solicitors Condonation by one Partner-Liability of Both.-A sum of money was obtained from the Paymaster-General by means of a fraudulent petition, to which the name of a firm of solicitors had, without their knowledge, been attached. One of the partners was subsequently informed that the firm's name had been used in a merely formal business, and without making any enquiry into the nature of the business, accepted a cheque for fees which he handed to his partner, who paid it to the firm's account. Held, that both partners were jointly and severally liable for all loss which occurred to the misappropriated fund from the date when the one partner condoned the misuse of the firm's name.

Marsh v. Joseph, 74 L.T. 412. (vi.) Ch. D.-Solicitors Act, 1843, 83. 37, 41--Solicitors Remuneration Act,

1881, s. 8—- Delivery of Bill-Cash Account-PaymentTaxation - The delivery of a cash account without items is not equivalent to the delivery of a bill of costs, and the Court has power to order the delivery of a bill whether or not there has been payment, even though it may not have jurisdiction to refer the bill for taxation. Decision of Court below affirmed.-In re Buylis, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 107;

74 L.T. 337 and 506. (i.) C. A.-Costs--Order of Course to Tax One of Several Bills.-Where a

solicitor who had delivered separate bills to his client on distinct matters wrote that he treated the sums which he had received on account as a complete discharge and gave up all documents, it was held that a common order of course to tax one only of the bills which the client had subsequently obtained was properly made.--In re Ward (a Solicitor),

L.R. [1896] 2 Ch. 31 ; 74 L.T. 567. Stock Exchange :(ii.) H. L.-.“ Differences "? Cover.Gaming and Wagering Contract

Gaming Act, 1845, s. 18.– Where a Stock Exchange transaction is
intended to end in the payment of differences it is not removed from
being a gaming and wagering contract by a provision that either party
may require delivery of stock; and securities deposited as
may be recovered by action. Judgment of C. A. affirmed.—Universal

Stock Exchange v. Strachan, L.R. (1896] A.C. 166 ; 74 L.T. 468. Succession Duty:(iii.) Q. B. D.-New Succession - Consideration of Money or Money's

Worth-Succession Duty Act, 1853, ss. 2, 15, 17, 18.– The interests of beneficiaries under a will were conveyed by deed to trustees in trust amongst other things to (1st) payan annuity for life to F. Lord W. during the life of another, and (2nd) after that other's death to “continue to pay the said annuity” to the person for the time being holding the title of Lord W. Held, that the annuity in the 2nd clause was not a continuation of the annuity provided by the 1st clause, but created a new succession; and that the circumstances shewed that the deed was not made in consideration of “money or money's worth ” so as to be exempt from duty under sect. 17 of the Act.--The Attorney-General v. Baron Wolverton, 75 L.T. 71.


[ocr errors]


Trade Mark:(iv.) C. D.- Registration, Portrait of Manufacturer as Distinctive Device

Infringement-- Deloy-Patents, Sc., Act, 1888, s. 10, sub-s. 1 (c).- The plaintiff registered the name of a lozenge with a device of his own portrait. Another manufacturer imitated the trade mark. Held, that the portrait was a distinctive device; that as it was obviously the defendant's intention to pass off his goods as made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, notwithstanding a delay in

claiming his right.- Rowland v. Michell, 75 L.T. 65. (v.) C. D.- Registration by Agent of Trade Mark of Foreiyn Producer

Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, s. 90.- An English company were agents, but not sole agents, for goods supplied by an American firm and registered in the United States. The English company registered the trade mark in this country a few weeks before the American firm sold its business to another firm. Held, that such registration was without sufficient cause, and rectification was ordered.

-In re European Blair Camera Conpany's Trade Mark, 75 L.T. 63. (vi.) C. D.- Registration, Change of Name of Proprietor-Patents, Designs

and Trade Marks Acts, 1883, ss. 78, 87, 90, 92; 1888, ss. 21, 23.Where the registered proprietors of a trade mark changed their name, it was held that the new name should be inserted in the register under sect. 87 of the Act of 1883.--In re New Ormonde Cycle Co., Limited, L.R. (1896] 2 Ch. 520; 75 L.T. 50.

« PreviousContinue »